Cylindre buckling under axial load

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the buckling behavior of thin cylinders under axial loads, referencing Timoshenko's theory for shell buckling and a formula from Dubbel's "Taschenbuch für den Maschinenbau." The derived stress formula, σ = e/R*E/(3(1-μ²))^0.5, was compared to experimental results from stepping on a soda can, yielding a significantly lower force value. Participants noted that experimental results often deviate from theoretical predictions, suggesting a need for corrective factors in calculations. The conversation highlights the importance of empirical validation in engineering design, particularly for structures sensitive to geometric imperfections.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Timoshenko's theory for shell buckling
  • Familiarity with the formula for stress in thin cylinders: σ = e/R*E/(3(1-μ²))^0.5
  • Knowledge of experimental methods in structural engineering
  • Basic principles of continuum mechanics and buckling analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the derivation and applications of Timoshenko's shell buckling theory
  • Study experimental methods for measuring buckling loads in thin-walled structures
  • Explore the impact of geometric imperfections on buckling behavior
  • Investigate the use of stiffeners in enhancing the stability of cylindrical structures
USEFUL FOR

Structural engineers, mechanical engineers, and researchers focused on material science and buckling analysis will benefit from this discussion, particularly those involved in the design and testing of thin-walled structures.

Enthalpy
Messages
667
Reaction score
4
Hello everybody, and a happy new year!

Found in Dubbel (Taschenbuch für den Maschinenbau) page C47 7.3.2 the axial load that buckles a thin cylindre. This is not Euler's buckling of a long compressed beam, but probably from Timoshenko's theory for shell buckling applied to a thin cylinder.

The book gives:
σ = e/R*E/(3(1-μ2))0.5 where σ is the stress,
and taking Poisson's coefficient μ as 0.33 I obtain
σ/E = 0,612*e/R
and
F = 3,845*e2*E.

As I mistrust buckling computations, I stepped on a soda can over bathroom scales and got instead
F = 0,68*e2*E
far less...

I use this lower value now for my computations, but maybe I botched the experiment? I measured the thickness properly with a micrometer at several positions, tried to step slowly and vertically...

Do you have more experimental values, or different formulas from a theory?

And if someone steps on a can, please mind your ankle, I hurt mine.

Thank you!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Engineering news on Phys.org
Enthalpy said:
Do you have more experimental values, or different formulas from a theory?

"...experiments usualy give only 15 to 50% of that predicted theoretically; moreover, the observed buckle pattern is different from that predicted by the theory..."
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a801283.pdf

Your 0.68/3.845 = 18% is between 15 and 50%, so your experiment was OK :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Enthalpy
σ = e/R*E/(3(1-μ2))0.5

Have you seen the derivation of this formula?

It is for a long tube of dimensions where axial length > 10√(eR/2)

It was presented by Prescott in 1924, but he does not claim originality for it.
 
Thank you!

Meanwhile I've also seen
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19690013955_1969013955.pdf
http://shellbuckling.com/papers/classicNASAReports/1969NASA-TN-D-5561-Peterson.pdf
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930084510_1993084510.pdf

Which tell in essence the same picture:
- Elastic theory is b**cks for cylinder buckling
- Experiments are not reproducible, even for plain metal
- Introduce an experimental corrective factor much smaller than 1
- This factor depends on everything

Imagine for a cylinder with stiffeners, or of composite...
Build it first, measure, and only then make predictions?

A few considerations:
- My book isn't as good as I had thought...
- We have no theory for that in 2013! Shame.
- Once again, models are necessarily right - when Nature wants to conforms to them.
- Nasa and Naca documents from pre-computer era, when people made measurements, are a treasure. Fabulous to have them online.

OK, I have the necessary information to go further, thanks!
 
Enthalpy said:
We have no theory for that in 2013! Shame.

There's nothing wrong with the theory. The "only" difficulty is that this (and other related problems in continuum mechanics) are VERY sensitive to initial conditions and geometric imperfections. For thin cylinders, St Venant's principle often doesn't apply, therefore "local" deviations from a mathematically perfect structure have "global" consequences.

The solution is the same as for any other engineering problem: never "design" things that you can't analyse.

Imagine for a cylinder with stiffeners, or of composite...
Build it first, measure, and only then make predictions?
Stiffeners make the problem a lot simpler. One way to proceed is design a frame structure that carries the loads without buckling, and then cover it with a (non load carrying) thin cylinder.
 
Stepping on a soda can placed on a bathroom scale is not exactly the ne plus ultra of experimental procedure.
 
enthalpy
Which tell in essence the same picture:
- Elastic theory is b**cks for cylinder buckling
- Experiments are not reproducible, even for plain metal
- Introduce an experimental corrective factor much smaller than 1
- This factor depends on everything

I was disappointed to see this tantrum in response(?) to my civil question about the derivation of a formula that you yourself posted.

I got The Theory of Elastic Stability down from the shelf this morning.

There is a whole chapter devoted to this subject including a derivation of your formula (referenced to a 1910 paper in German) and a considerably more advanced analysis.

The authors also offer considerable experimental material, including test results on a variety of materials from steel to brass to rubber. There is also discussion of these results and comparison with theory.

Is there any point in my further contribution to this thread?
 

Similar threads

Column under a concentric axial load (Buckling)
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
Corrugated tube (bellow) under axial load
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K